User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
ArbCom amendment request
I've opened a request for an amendment to the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case based on today's Register story [1]. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ahead of you, Cla68 (you may want to stick your username into your header, btw).... I have to regretfully oppose the amendment. I've explained my reasons there, I hope you understand them. SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Your Arbcom Manifesto
Personal manifestos in short supply? [3].You have most certainly not: "been one of the Arbcom's harshest critics" - never read such bolox in all my life. You were happy enough with the Arbcom when you launched the last Arbcom attack against me, knowing full well, (I told you) where it would lead. Your denials and pleas of innocence cut no ice then, they cut them now. You did not get the gratitude from the powers that be for trying to serve my head on the plate, they very much want, so now you are the Arbcom's "harshest critic." My, my, how things change. Shame on you Fozzie, even I thought better of you. It takes more than a few posts on WR to convince most intelligent people. My memory is impeccable - try to remember that - it may be an advantage to you to do so. I sincerely hope the Arbcom will be improved, but without your dubious and treacherous services. Giano (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly recommend you refactor your comments, as they are of a hostile and personal nature.--Tznkai (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly not! I stand by every word. Giano (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- You'll note that he did say that he'd been one of Arb Comm's harshest critics on the way they have dealt with certain cases. I don't follow Arb Comm all that closely, but I think it would be fair to say that Fozzie was among their harshest critics on Mantanmoreland, don't you? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again with the accusations that ArbCom put me up to file the WMC/Geogre case, Giano? I thought we had settled that in the past. I even went to bat for you multiple times when others attempted to make the case about you. And yes, I consider myself one of the harshest critics of the way that ArbCom has handled cases, Mantanmoreland amongst them (the SV/JzG/Cla68/Viridae ArbCom comes to mind as well..) but I've made steps to try to fix the ArbCom as an institution (see my participation in the RfC), you seem content to stay back and attack ArbCom as individuals. Not that I don't agree with you in some cases, mind you! I hope you run as well, Giano, because as I said, ArbCom needs an influx of new ideas and new blood, and the more qualified candidates that run, the better off ArbCom (and thusly, Wikipedia as a whole) would be. SirFozzie (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- You launched that case knowing full well where it would lead. Don't try to back track now. Giano (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I launched that case knowing full well that the wheel war that occured was patently against Wikipedia's policies. I even provided evidence that showed that the escalating blocks on you were not supportable by Wikipedia policies. To try to claim that I filed that case intending to get you (or even that I tried to make it about you) is patently untrue. SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly not! I stand by every word. Giano (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I expressed a similar skepticism about your ArbCom run (as well as a surprising foresight that it was coming) long ago and I must say that nothing made me change my mind. My problem is not with your not being principled enough (which I think is not true and I believe in your honesty) but your judgment. So, I must say that I stand by my original opinion that this ArbCom run would be a bad idea and we would all be better off if we are spared of the drama of this particular arbcom run. An analogy with one last year candidate of whom I had very similar misgivings (judgment rather than honesty) during the last ArbCom run (and whose aborted run spared us all some drama) comes to mind.
That said, I find it beyond belief (and I have seen enough around here so that it is difficult to surprise me) that one fellow who commented above has judgment so poor as to block Giano for what he said above. This is an incredible lack of judgment. That Giano would be unblocked in no time is not doubted (and in hindsight, he was). But I remain firmly believing that only on the spot desysoppings for such self-serving exercises may alleviate the situation of such outrageous blocks.
The reason is easy to see. Most of those who blocked Giano are not here to build encyclopedia but rather having an alternative (to RL) "career" on-wiki and at #admins. For admins who don't write, the horror of desysopping would be a very good safe-restriction because having their bit removed (along with #admins access) would leave them without anything to do on Wikipedia. I am not blood-thirsty by any measure. But the truly outrageous measures got to prompt an adequate and swift community response. This is the second stupid block in a very short time by the fellow. He learned nothing from the first one. Some cleanup is in order. --Irpen 23:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Updated at 01:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Irpen, I am indeed "sprung" already. Fozzie's admin friend also blocked me from editing my User talk page, a sign of things to come I expect. Giano (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Giano, if I'm reading your insinuation correctly, is that I "got you blocked".. which is untrue, and I'm sorry you think that. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I insinunate nothing, I merely mention that leaving messages on your talk page which don't flatter your canidature lead to one being blocked not only from editing the encyclopedia, but also one's own talk page. You and others must draw your own conclusions. Now fascinating as these discussions are, it is late here, and I am going to bed. There is something very soporific about talking to you. G'night. Giano (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Giano, if I'm reading your insinuation correctly, is that I "got you blocked".. which is untrue, and I'm sorry you think that. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Irpen, I am indeed "sprung" already. Fozzie's admin friend also blocked me from editing my User talk page, a sign of things to come I expect. Giano (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I shall be voting for Sir. Foz. Along with voting for some others, hopefully:) Sticky Parkin 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest attack on me
Great to see Giano sorted so quickly, innit? (I utterly disagree with these random "civility blocks"). But it seems that I was sanctioned for more or less absolutely nothing and nobody seems remotely interested. I'm tempted to suggest that is down to my consistent stance on systematic bias on Wiki (and to the fact that I'm Irish and oppose British POV-pushing). However, as concerns about wheel-warring seems no obstical to quick action in a case were technically there is a clear civility breach (however daft the rule) then I'd have thought it might be even more forthcoming when there was NO OFFENCE committed. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad it seems to be over, yes. And Sarah, I will take a look at it, as I promised. I won't guarantee that you'll like my answer, because as a "neutral" administrator brought in what.. over a year ago, to try to keep the two siders from wasting everyone's time... before this all blew up, I was thinking about proposing GLOBAL sanctions on Troubles related articles of the 1RR/week, etcetera. All editors. You, me, Allie, Dunc, Domer, Tznkai, Hack (if he ever came back), Joe Random Editor, EVERYONE.. because the whole thing is too easy to edit war about and everyone's in the habit of edit-warring. Too many new accounts/returned accounts.. you know this better then I do. SirFozzie (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- If what applies to me applies to everyone, then (maybe!) fine. But look at this from the Intelligent design history!
- (cur) (last) 02:41, 30 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (167,755 bytes) (RM Junk science from lead ---> moving to talk) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 02:39, 30 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,760 bytes) (Partial RV:undoing collateral damage) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 14:14, 29 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,804 bytes) (→Defining science: This should do, but man this is a messy section) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 14:08, 29 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (167,799 bytes) (Rm junk science from lead to reinsert) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 02:30, 28 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,804 bytes) (argument--->assertion in "advocates of ID argue that..." seems to be a better use of the vocab) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 17:21, 27 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,803 bytes) (certain --> A group, fix linebreak) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 12:49, 27 September 2008 Shahab (Talk | contribs) (167,795 bytes) (→Religion and leading proponents: corrected link) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 18:58, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (167,787 bytes) (commentag-whoops) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 18:58, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (167,787 bytes) (commentag) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 18:57, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (167,786 bytes) (linebreak) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 18:55, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (167,785 bytes) (Undid revision 241170089 by Orangemarlin (talk) + clip unequivocal, redundant and polemic, AAAS was quoted twice, now once) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 18:38, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,142 bytes) (RM: Junk science line. I'm going to sandbox revise the whole lead at some point in the future, but the junk science line is redundant and weasely.) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 15:49, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (169,129 bytes) (→Religion and leading proponents: +space) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 15:48, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (169,128 bytes) (→Religion and leading proponents: eliminate most weasel word, rearrange denomination for increased accuracy. Roman Catholics are NOT evangelical, other wording and linking specifications (inclGod)) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 19:28, 25 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (169,642 bytes) (Empty edit: Do not continue reverting, that constitutes edit warring, don't make us drag out RFPP, that will only end stupidly.) (undo)
At the exact same time this guy was sanctioning me for a single alleged edit!! Now come on Fozzie; why not block him for edit warring and leave my probation in place; I'd settle for that! Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- BTW Fozzie; why did you get the whole of Dublin blocked for six months? How did you miss me? Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Don't fall for Goldie's propaganda.. he was using a little used Mobile IP set, of which Gold Heart was the only user on it, when Checkuser confirmed that (Allie AND another checkuser), it was blocked for six months to keep him from IP hopping. He immediately claimed that we rangeblocked half of Ireland.. as you say, if we had done such things, I think there would be a rather big hue and cry. I'd look at this edit by a WR regular that calls Goldie on his lies. Needless to say, you shouldn't find his rants credible. SirFozzie (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Gary Gygax
I see that you have put some work into the Gary Gygax article, which I have nominated for a GA review. If there is anything you can do to help it get passed, please join in! Also, feel free to comment on the D&D WikiProject talk page regarding our efforts to get articles in the 0.7 release. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Troubles
Since you commented: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Modified_remedies_proposal — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you...
...for watching out for my user talk page. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you explaine what you mean
"email a request to ArbCom, Domer. Placing Ulseter Defence Regiment notice of article probation." Could you also show me the diff's that were used to support such a decision? --Domer48'fenian' 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of these games! Were is the evidence against me? Show me the diff were the evidence was presented? --Domer48'fenian' 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Domer: Your whole section is evidence against you. Cut this out now. You've been blocked twice in the last two weeks for your behaviour. If you don't know specifically what you are doing wrong, I suggest you take a break, re read Wikipedia's rules on behaviour, and come back when you can follow them. SirFozzie (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, not one diff! I'll be raising the blocks on WP:RfC. Thanks for your help, duly noted. --Domer48'fenian' 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're certainly able to do that, Domer, but I'm not sure the results will be what you desire. SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah well all we can do is see. I’ll also be raising the conduct of Admin’s at the RfC, and how this ANI was handled as I think now it is a Community matter. As this conduct affects every editor on the project, we should get as many views as possible. --Domer48'fenian' 20:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked for an explanation of the 'Final remedies' as I'm unclear what exactly was decided. (Maybe I'm slow I'll concede). However "You've been blocked twice in the last two weeks" isn't really an argument as we know that bad blocks abound. I note that Tznkai's "probation" of me still stands on the record even though it was overturned; it was exactly because of this "cumulative justice" effect that I contested a sanction that was, in itself, trivial. Also I must say "We're sick and tired of these games" is the sort of remark that got me "reminded" of my civility parole but which Admins appear to feel free to use all the time. (A point I've made surely a few dozen times by now). It isn't just Admins who get irritated by what goes on here; the nature of the policing makes many productive editors extremely "sick and tired". Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
AAU reminder notice
 |
Hey there SirFozzie! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers! |
- Notice delivery by xenobot 14:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
I hope you are doing good, I would like it very much if you semi-protected the Page Jay Sean as it is being Vandalised a bit too much. --LGK (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Adoption request
Hi, I'd like to be adopted. I know very little about wikipedia and am primarily trying to add information about my company and industry - in a non-advertising kind of way. Sjones71 (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Sanctions proposals for British Isles usage
Hello Fozz. While Tharky & HK are under 1RR, will they be allowed to participate at the British Isels Taskforce? GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- PS- can the veteran IP accounts who frequent the British Isles topic, be barred from the discussion at the current AE report? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thunderer
I'll try to have a deeper look when I've finished the latest British Isles nonsense - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_above_IP_and_User:HighKing_-_request_for_eyes. Black Kite 20:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's a mobile phone network - CU won't be any use. Black Kite 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Edit: ah, I see what you mean. Hang on, I'll email you. Black Kite 20:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nice to see you have a special section already prepared for me on your page Fozzie. Would you be kind enough to look in on Ulster Defence Regiment please as I have made some major and radical moves to split the article after a warning on the edit page and after taking advice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history.Thunderer (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Foz and co. Sorry about the delay - I've been off-line (yahooo!!!). That blocked range checks out to have extremely little collateral damage. Just your edit-warrior and very little else. A certain admin used it a few months back, but is unrelated :) - Alison ❤ 08:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Ulster Defence Regiment
I'm getting frustrated with Domer again. He insists upon adding in more emotive, political wording on the B Specials and the Royal Irish Regiment which is taking the article off topic and certainly away from the neutral. I've made a note on the talk page in reply to him and reverted the information. He just doesn't seem to understand the concept of concise, encyclopedic neutrality. Could you advise him please - otherwise I'm never going to get this article to A Class.Thunderer (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thunderer please use the talk page. There are now four editors who agree with the information. This is the second time since AE that you have reverted this information. Please revert yourself, I have asked you on the talk page not to breech the WP:1RR. --Domer48'fenian' 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good move, SirFoz. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- 'Tis alright. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya
No I don't have one. PS- sorry bud, I didn't know. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Poor old Dunc
I have just posted here [4] I think the situation need re-examining. Giano (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Request
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:
- Were is the edit war which prompted the page to be blocked. Please bear in mind the article is under WP:1RR.
- Show me, by way of diff’s what and were I have done something which warrants a Page/Troubles ban?
- On the talk page, could you show me were I may have been uncivil or disruptive in your opinion?
- On the Article, could you show me by way of diff's were I may have breech sanctions or been disruptive in your opinion.
I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, --Domer48'fenian' 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect you have not addressed any of the questions I have raised above at AE. In fact you have compounded the issue by further claims and accusations. You are agreeing to sanctions on me, and yet, having initiated this whole discussion you have not provided any diff’s to support such an action. You’re opening remarks to this discussion [5] [6] with expressions of frustrated emotions were entirely for uncalled and only served to inflame and heighten tension on the page in my opinion.
Your actions to date, like page protecting the article while choosing to ignore yet another breech of 1RR agreed by the recent AE is a case in point. You chose to ignore the Tread I had opened on the subject, opening your own, again emotively titled “latest dispute.” When ask to explain the page protection, rational for it being edit warring, you said there was none. You were asked to point out who was doing the reverting but rather than responding you article banned editors which it appears now you may not have been entitled to do.
This type of conduct I would not expect from an admin, not least one who wishes to progress to ArbCom. Now in my opinion, I'm entitled to be frustrated because I’m the one facing sanctions, and being painted in all types of colours. However, I have supported my views with diff’s and I would appreciate the same consideration. I don’t need to be told I’m a good editor, though it is very thoughtful and welcome under thses conditions, and I’m not above criticism. But when I am criticized I feel I’m entitled to at the very least the supporting diff’s, and not to be submerged by expressions of opinion and unsupported comment. Please address the questions above, some editors/admin's have made an effort and some have not. --Domer48'fenian' 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You placed a template on this article saying that it was at deletion review, but I can't find it there. What is going on? Edison (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_18 is where it's at. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Do you suppose Willie Horton would be any good as a plumber? Edison (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
G'day Foz
Saw your post on the arb page, and wanted to swing by just to say that my talk page is always open, and I'd really really like to keep my issues out of the arb request if at all possible? I sincerely believe that clarity becomes really really important in stuff like this - being in my view the kindest and cleanest path forward. Happy to talk more about why I feel making a short post like this is the 'right' thing to do, and hope you're good anywhoo... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed modifications to Domer, Dunc, and Thunderers' topic ban here please comment.--Tznkai (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Flag
Watchlisted. Also, ARGH.--Tznkai (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. That was my first thought when I saw it today. Also *facepalm* SirFozzie (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Provisional IRA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a fairly straight forward case. I spotted the use of the Irish term "Oglaigh na hEireann" being used as an official title for the Provisional IRA. (I use the articles for reference myself you see?). I knew it to be untrue so I changed it and gave an explanation. Republican Jacobite and O Fenian both objected but I discussed the matter as you can see. Eventually O Fenian provided the link to the Irish Statute book here which absolutely proved me right (shooting himself in the foot btw) but by that time I didn't feel I could revert again so asked O Fenian to self revert. O Fenian is very new to this and I don't want to bully him, even if he has been very uncivil to the point of being threatening. That's why I brought it to the AE board because my experience shows these things can get out of hand very quickly. O Fenian needs guidance but I don't think he wants it from me. Thunderer (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I left him a notice. I have a yet unproven suspicion that he may be a returning editor, but I'll need to get a CU to do that. If you look at the Domer thing on AE, things for me are a bit gang aft agley at the moment, so I'm busier than a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. I'm going to ping Ryan on this and see what we can do :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can promise this wasn't me edit warring. My observations were in very good faith and with the integrity of the wiki in mind. Paragraph three of the article explains the entire matter in very good detail but the new chap doesn't seem to want to accept it. Surprisingly even Republican Jacobite doesn't seem to have thought it through before acting. I'll leave you to it. I hadn't realised matters had escalated from the AE page. I'd better do some reading and cathch up with it all.Thunderer (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- That information has been in the article for 18 months. I have provided sources, including the IRA's own Consitution, which state that the only official name of the IRA is Óglaigh na hÉireann. This editor started the edit war and continued it, as the article history shows. O Fenian (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said on the talk page; your own source here from the Government of the Republic of Ireland clearly repudiates what you're trying to assert and, that being the case, the information in the article was clearly incorrect and needed amending. I didn't do this just to wind you or anyone else up. Wikipedia is striving to be factually accurate and all editors should work together, in harmony, towards making it so. Thunderer (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Government of the Republic of Ireland. on this page which you kindly provided. The IRA is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the Republic of Ireland. It doesn't have the legal right to usurp the name of the Irish Defence Forces. Simple as that. Thunderer (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Harassment
Tell persistent pests to stay away from my talk page please. O Fenian (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Enforcement
Why have you protected the PIRA article instead of dealing with the editor who is well aware of the 1RR sanctions that were imposed yet continues to revert. How many times has Thunderer reverted on the PIRA article? Are the sanctions dropped? Or is a blind eye being turned to this editor? BigDuncTalk 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I only protected six hours, when things were gang aft agley. Things still are, thanks to certain emails I'm receiving. if he's violated it, I will block him shortly. SirFozzie (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Simple to see Fozz count the reverts. I am feeling as sick of this whole drama as you are but if you are quick to hand out blocks to other editors then at least be seen to be evenhanded. BigDuncTalk 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm working on it, Dunc. I'm also talking with other admins to determine what the best course of action here (block, article ban, topic ban, some combination of all of the above). At the MININUM, he's earned a 0RR parole on that article. I'm informing him of that now. SirFozzie (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
POV warning
With regard to your comment on my user page:
"Edits such as this one hardly complies with Wikipedia's rules on Neutral Point of View. Please make sure your edits comply with this policy. SirFozzie (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"
I respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion, the sources cited support my edit, but if you can provide a detailed reason or reasons why you say that my edit "hardly" complies with Wikipedia policy, I will give your reasons full consideration. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Ping me
You can find me online somewheres I am sure. Jehochman Talk 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Naked Short Selling
I know you were going to get started on the international reaction to Naked Short Selling. Hope you don't mind that I beat you to the punch (I went with an old section I had kicked around on NSS's talk page, updated with the Nikkei stuff), but please, edit/add/subtract to what I did mercilessly. Have a good one! SirFozzie (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)